Talk:Transformers (film)/Archive 1

Ratchet

Looking closely at the photo that made it out, I agree with the unregistered editor who added the comment about the Hummer. I expanded upon it. ALSO, I believe that this may be more than simply an ambulance or fire-rescue (which is basically a fire department-run ambulance) based on the equipment on top of the vehicle. It looks like it could be a primary field vehicle for a technical rescue or SAR team. That would also explain the color... (When was the last time you saw a yellow ambulance? Fire truck, yes, but ambulance?) From the lightbar to the grill guards to the roof rack and equipment, this looks like a Search and Rescue team vehicle (and, on a side note, one I'd personally love to have for my team!). VigilancePrime 05:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Leaked pics

Posting leaked pics is ILLEGAL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewatch (talk • contribs) at 23:01

Since when?

Since Thewatch decided it was..

Well I still want that pic of Prime. That was cool, I saw it one day and was going to save it, but now its gone.

Since Dreamworks got pissed off.

Since it's acknowledged that any leaked pics are illegal, since it doesn't adhere to fair-use / copyright guidelines. --TrevelyanL85A2 20:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There was some info and pics on the movie in UK Empire mag (I think). If I were to get the mag and scan the images in - is that legal? UltimateNagash 18:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Megatron's eye

Can we please stop reverting this line back and forth? Though I haven't gotten into this revert scuffle, I agree that it should NOT be there. Sure, it could be Megatron's eye. It could be a new transformer we haven't seen. It could be Optimus Prime's eye as the new movie draws him. The point is, it could be almost anything.

VigilancePrime 21:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Poster Image

The article indicates that there's a dispute over whether the robot image above Earth is that Autobot symbol or something else. I believe that upon close examination of the image you will see that it is indeed the Autobot symbol. At the top left corner of the eye is a diagonal cut moving up and to the left, like the Autobot symbol. Just above the eye is clearly seen another diagonal cut which is one of the two in the Autobot symbol. And, finally, to the right of the eye is the bridge of the "nose" of the Autobot symbol and it bends in the exact spot as well. This is, without a doubt, the Autobot symbol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.153.240.74 (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I have an idea that it might be unicron... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.17.33 (talk • contribs) 15:41, July 23, 2006

As stated before, it could be a lot of things. The fact, however, is that we cannot make rash judgements. For the record, The autobot symbol is red, Unicron is yellow, Optimus is blue. The image looks more purplish and could easily be Megatron. Also, this isn't a forum. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 20:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

That first paragraph under Plot Details is total speculation. Anything in the linked articles is from a draft and not officially in the movie at all. And the first "source" is just some guys thoughts on the second link. None of this has been confirmed at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.225.17 (talk • contribs)

Could you be more specific? Oh and sign your comments. Being a GIPU is no excuse for disregarding how things are done. ACS (Wikipedian) 21:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to look into the source for the Plot Details section a bit more. After reading that Optimus is supposed to be a baseball bat, I checked the source and couldn't find anything that said that (aside from the fact that there's images of a semitruck Optimus from the movie floating around). -MB

Test CGI

Removed the alleged "Test CGI footage" of Optimus Prime. This video is fan-made work that has been doing the rounds for a number of months. Unless a reference can confirm that the creator is involved in the movie the video has no place here.

Brawl is a Decepticon

I have already corrected this but someone keeps changing it back. The Police Car as seen in photos has the Decepticon insignia on it's wheels.

I think they are getting mixed up with Brawn - I had to double check, Brawl isnt exactly a major character 80.177.65.182 15:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe Brawl is one of the Combaticons that Starscream built in the second season of the cartoon, correct?

Correct. Brawl was built on the season 2 episode "Starscream's Brigade". Can't remember the episode number, since they're all mixed up. He transformed into a triple-barreled tank, but without the "mine sweeper" things in the front. Brawn was an Autobot who transformed into a Land Rover-like jeep. DireWolf 17:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Countdown

Um... on the main website, there's a countdown that ends on July 4th at 1:00 PM (incidentally, an exact year before the release date). Anyone else a little suspicious about this? Should it be mentioned in the article that there's a countdown?

The countdown is for the release of the teaser trailer. --Madchester 20:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Teaser Trailer

Teaser 2 Trailer

1. Is it now worth noting on the site that Michael Bay's site (shootfortheedit.com) notes that December 22nd could be the release date for the next teaser trailer?
   1. It does appear now that it will be available to see on Wednesday, December 20th on the official Transformers Movie website. There are conflicting reports about if or when it will be in theaters (and what movie it will be in front of) and when other sites will have it as well for viewing/streaming. LK Thurisaz 15:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
      1. The new trailer will likely be in front of 'Night At The Museum' (of course, what trailers are shown are at the each theaters discression). No word when it will be online.

Screenings/Sightings

1. This part is incorrect. I went to see Dead Man's Chest this weekend and there was NO Transformers trailer in the previews. I suggest we remove that from the the article. Magnus 19:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Or it could be indicated that some theaters are showing Dead Man's Chest with the Transformer's teaser, while others are not, if indeed the teaser is being shown in some theaters with Dead Man's Chest...Ackander 15:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It is. I saw it. It's the same as the Spider-Man 3 trailer being shown at some Superman Returns screenings, but no others (in cluding the one I saw). No big. ACS (Wikipedian) 05:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The mars sky

The following claim is made about the mars sky:

""Mars" depicted in the trailer bears little resemblance to the Mars of reality. Its sky is blue and streaked with white clouds, whereas Mars's sky is butterscotch brown, though thin clouds and indeed, even a light dusting of snow have been observed."

I compared the trailer to images taken by Viking Lander 1 and not counting clouds the sky looked pretty much identical. I am aware that NASA has used false colouring to make the sky look brownish (Due to the photographs not being taken in our color spectrum). Is the trailer really wrong on this one?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Vikinglander-view.jpg

Come on, man. It's not Mars. It's the Cybertron. What in the trailer that is not true is not only the crash, but also the mission's destination. It goes to the planet Cybertron at the first place. --Mato Rei 15:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Who is it in Teaser?

Until we have better information, let's refrain from adding text that admits to being speculation. As for the identity, A friend with Premiere took the Citroen Commercial, and the teaser, and frame by frame'd them sie by side, and came to the conclusion that the robot's PROBABLY the same robot. There was a lot of talk of them testing the technology before release, as was done with 'bullet-time' and the honda commercials. The Citroen commercial was the most identitified candidate commercial, until just recently, when a number of 'transforming' products and logos have been showing up, at least on American TV. ThuranX 01:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont think its supposed to be any specific tranformers - either one from the traditional canon of characters or a new character for the film. I think it's just a generic 'big robot' shape. Maybe they used the same template as the Citroen advert. As an aside, I wonder whether in-jokes will appear in either the film or the adverts about one another... 80.177.65.182 15:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It's been noted by a few people that the shadow appears similar to Gen 1 Starscream, but this is just speculation. But as the last guy said, it's probably not anyone in particular.

It looks like the guy who comes out of the lori's pool in the 2nd trailer to me --Mato Rei 15:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Reorganising

This article was fairly messy and had a great deal of repetition and duplication, as well as bits and pieces in different sections that really belonged in other sections. I've swapped a number of paragraphs around and deleted a number of repeated comments. I've also eliminated the "trivia" section, since most of its information belonged elsewhere. Serendipodous 10:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

More reoganising Serendipodous 17:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Opinion and conjecture is not fact

Wikipedia is not the place to post gripes about a film, especially when it hasn't even been released yet. As such all comments regarding fan opinions to leaks should be avoided. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.212.29.179 (talk • contribs) 05:35, July 19, 2006.

Unless of course, this is some source like a news article or something with complaints. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Transformers to be announced this morn?

On IMDB messageboards people are saying at 11am Pacific Standard time, two members of the production crew of the film are revealing all the transformers who are to be featured in the film during a live chat on Yahoo. Is this true and if it is, should it be put on the article? Evilgidgit 12:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hold off and cover the results. If it's a rumor, then there would be nothing to cover after teh fact except 'there was rumor that wasn't true about..." and if it IS true, there will be useful citations to reference, and good info to add. ThuranX 13:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I subscribed to paramount for official updates. Nothing...not even when the trailer was released. Then, suddenly, thus E-Mail which looks like it was written by a excited fanboy comes through. This is legit. BTW, why would you say "tonight"? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 16:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that the official Transformers roster for the movie has been announced, I think the Transformers on screen section could stand to be trimmed down. Perhaps trimming out the speculated info and adding descriptions to the confirmed bots is in order.Djseifer 23:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Edit as you see fit. --Erik 23:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really a large cast of transformers is it? Oh, well. Barricade needs his link changed as it simply goes to Barricade when it should be Barricade (Transformers). I'll change it.

I've restructed the section. Now someone with more brains than me can clean it up. Wiki-newbie 11:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Spike/Sam

For the time being, I think all instances of "Spike" should be changed to "Sam". While it's likely that he'll be the Spike we all know and love, everyone from the producers to the director to the writers are calling him Sam, with only the slightest of hints that it'll be changed to Spike.

As such, I have altered it. Wiki-newbie 18:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

IMDB lists Shia LaBeouf's Character as Spike Witwicky. Covar1 00:11, 26 August 2006 (EST)

IMDb lists Rosemary Harris's character as Carnage and Ryan Phillpe's as Harvey Dent. Like Bignole once said, Inaccurate Movie Database has lost it's credability. Anyway, I agree with avoiding nicknames. We have no idea what the new movie's approach to the Wickley family will be and it would be somewhat odd to use the nicknames in the article if they're not use in the film. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 05:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

actually it lists Rosemary Harris as Aunt May for all three Spider-Man films and there is no one in IMDB called Ryan Phillpe. In fact the first i've heard him called Sam is in the wikipedia article. Covar1 11:13, 26 August 2006 (EST)

IMDB is a perfectly valid secondary source and should be taken as just that -- secondary. Sometimes they have access to information that noone else has and because of this they are a potentially valuable source. They try very hard to maintain factual accuracy, but their model doesn't allow for everyone to jump in and make changes when they make mistakes. As Covar1 pointed out above me, they have corrected their mistake already; probably a database glitch. --Butters 15:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Spelling mistake. Ryan Phillippe, okay? The guy's got too many letters in there. The point is that IMDb lacks relavence in this and most matters such as this. The relavent people—the ones actually working on the movie or close to said workers—refer to the character as "Sam". His real name is "Sam". It's just accuracy. It sometimes happens that different media don't use the same if any niclnames. Zilla is a great example. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 18:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

For someone on wikipedia to say that IMDB is not good enough of a source is irony in the truest sense of the word. Covar 20:30, 27 August 2006 (EST)

No one in this section of the talk page ever claimed Wikipedia is a more reliable source than IMDb. However, it is certainly not ironic—misuse of the word notwithstanding—for a Wikipedian to denounce the cred of a site that can wrong and still defend its own inaccurate data. Now, can we please not argue over the little things and stay on point? This article is supposed to represent facts. It has it's faults, but if we can avoid making an error in writing, I say we do so. This movie may just call the character Sam and official sources have not shown otherwise. If we use the nickname anyway, it's like we're misrepresenting the facts. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 08:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

According to Merriam-Webster, Covar is using the word "ironic" just fine. Check that third entry, there. Specifically, "[...] incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result." I'd say that someone on Wikipedia saying that IMDB isn't a good enough source is ironic indeed.

And, Covar, I agree.

-- Last Thylacine 19:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Fan Reaction

Objective fan reaction should be mentioned. The reaction to the megatron leaks were huge, there should be a mention. The AICN thread has exploded. Don Murphy has even gone to the low point of insulting a blogger.

I have removed some weasel words though. Oh, and please sign discussions with four dashes. Wiki-newbie 15:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

One last note - AICN is the ultimate whiner blog. However, the Murphy insult is worthy of note. Wiki-newbie 15:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the relevance of fan reaction in the blogosphere to this film's production? Fan reaction cannot be gauged accurately, and to attempt to do so on one's own violates Wikipedia's policy of no original research. In my opinion, fan reaction information should be kept at a minimum (if allowed at all) if reliable sources are not going to be used. To be honest, this article comes off as a news aggregator instead of a reputable source of valid information regarding the film. --Erik 15:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

True, like I said AICN is the leading whine site. I'm going back for further trimming. Wiki-newbie 16:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for improving the article

• The plot section does not talk about any sort of plot at all, but instead lists various possible scenes for the film in no particular order. This could be redone (and cited) based on any valid sources that explain the overview of the movie.
• The "Production history" section should be changed to "Production" and further broken down based on the specific areas of production. For example, filming news could fall under "Filming locations" subsection and the companies' dealings with each other can fall under a "Distribution" subsection.
• Remove any sources that use "reportedly" in any sense -- for example, "Welker has reportedly sent in an audition tape for the role." If a report cannot be validated, then that information should not be worthy of including in the article.
• Don't spam sources of information when the reference can speak for itself. Saying, "On April 23, 2006, Ain't It Cool News posted an interview with Bay that took place at the director's offices in Los Angeles" is unnecessary and extraneous information.
• I also suggest maintaining consistency in citing sources. Look to The Dark Knight or Spider-Man 3 to see how footnotes are utilized and detailed. Instead of a mix of ref tags and embedded links, my recommendation is to use the Cite news or Cite web template.
• The "Transformers on screen" section needs to be more strongly cited in describing the Transformers. This is a film; cinematic license will be taken by the studio to portray certain Transformers differently from canon. Parallels should not be drawn so quickly.
• Purge the trailer synopsis section, or at least reduce it to a paragraph (or even start a trivia section and include this). Such an in-depth description and analysis does not need to be made of a teaser trailer.
• The "Internet leaks" section should not even be a section. If the sources of Internet leaks are valid, then the information should be disseminated into their respective sections, such as Production and Transformers on screen.

This film article could look a lot better. --Erik 16:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Internet leaks section has been disseminated. I removed the whole "Megatron contrversy" after realizing that there was some blatant promotionalism for some sites going on, and the actual heart of the matter, Murphy's repsponse was unsourced and possibly slanderous. ThuranX 19:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The dissemination also should help address the issue with the "Transformers on Screen" section, by moving citations there. ThuranX 19:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Plot section

Could someone rewrite the excerpt from the interview with Shia LeBouf for the Plot section? In addition, I suggest that the first paragraph in the Plot section be purged, as it is just a list of scenes in the movie and does not explain the overall story arc at all (except for the beginning on Cybertron mention). The rewritten excerpt should be able to sufficiently fill in the Plot section until a more in-depth storyline is revealed. --Erik 00:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Done and done, I feel I have LaBeouf's meanings written well. Wiki-newbie 16:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Homage

Hehe, now that I think about it, 'an (h)omage' sounds cooler. Sorry for causing grief. I won't mess with it any more if anyone wants to chang it back. Cheers! Ackander 09:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Welker

How accurate is the news that Welker was cast as Megatron? I didnt go to Botcon so I admit I can't be 100% sure, but a quick browse of the seibertron forums revealed this:[1]. Any thoughts?SMegatron 09:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Not until it's official mate. Wiki-newbie 16:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

How official is this?: [2]

References

I just cleaned up a lot of the references: two had dissapeared. Always remember to use Citation Templates people. Wiki-newbie 16:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Official Announcements

I must seriously wonder what is going on with this area of the article: somehow, older information is invisible when I put in new information. Wiki-newbie 15:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 17:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I second the "Huh?" I'm not sure what you're talking about. If you're losing information, refer to the article's history to recover it. Also, is there any chance that "Official announcements" subsection can just be merged into the Production section somehow and/or get a new name? "Official announcements" sounds so... fanboy-ish. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 17:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Basically, here's what it was before I added more extensive information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transformers_%282007_film%29&oldid=80431776 And now, if you click 'edit' on it, you can see rewritten old info, but it's invisible in the article. Wiki-newbie 17:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This was my fix: <ref name="Bay at Texas premiere"> = <ref name="Bay at Texas premiere" /> Needed the slash. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 17:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. As useful as they are, they're a bit hard to edit. Wiki-newbie 18:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Read up. You'll get the hang of it. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 18:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

References do not work

Some how it seems all of the references dont work. When you click on them, nothing happens. TakingUpSpace 22:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone erased all the notes. Not sure why. 161.253.40.203 23:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted to an earlier version: [3]. The refs should work now. TakingUpSpace's corrections were after an anon user blanked much of the page. -Phoenixrod 00:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

GM

THe recently added fact that all the transformers now appear to be GM owned is rather peculiar. It's true for the cases shown: Bumblebee, e.g., used to be a VW Beetle and now he's a Chevrolet, which is owned by GM. I take it GM must be sponsoring the movie to some extent. Further info would be welcome if someone knows where to look this up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.49.145.71 (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

While it is obviously true that GM probably had some sort of a deal for the movie, it is equally obvious it is just a product placement thing and not a sponsorship, after all Barricade is a Mustang, which is a Ford model (appropriately enough GM's arch nemesis) CartmanUK26 13:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't hope the crew stick on GM brand either. The new Dodge Challenger can make a wonderful Cliffjumper comparing with the Camaro Bumblebee. They don't even have to make a new color scheme. Together the new generation muscle cars can do an awesome show if they make it happen in sequel. But I don't mind if they give us a more Cadillac CTS Wheeljack. --Mato Rei 05:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well it's a tie-in deal, but remember that Wikipedia is not a forum. WikiNew 12:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Cast cites

Those anyone feel we need that many citations for the cast members in the film? Wiki-newbie 11:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Are there any cast members whose presence may be questionable? Otherwise, I think for people like Peter Cullen and Shia LaBeouf, the citations can be removed, as they've received plenty of coverage. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 15:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Page move

I sort of disagree with the move from Transformers (2007 film) to Transformers (film), seeing as there already has been a Transformers film. To be really nitpicky, it was called "Transformers: The Movie" and not simply "Transformers", but it was about the same toyline (which one would never guess from only looking at the films, as the character designs are completely different), and so having the years in the titles would better illustrate this. JIP | Talk 15:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Transformers: The Movie and Transformers aren't the same title. Wiki-newbie 16:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No, but they're similar enough to deserve disambiguation, in my opinion. JIP | Talk 16:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If this were titled Transformers: The Movie then the (2007 film) disambiguation would be work, but it's not. I think pages for disambiguation are also if for more than two articles. Wiki-newbie 16:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Put it this way--there's a link at the top of 'both' of them to direct you to the other if you get confused.

International releases

Just mking a section here for these facts until there are enough to create a table or section, or both, or whatever.ThuranX 22:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

A japanese release set for August 8, 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThuranX (talk • contribs) 22:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

So, Japanese release but no info on the UK release date at all? UltimateNagash 18:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

IMDB says that the UK release will be on the 27/06

perfectblue 15:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That's earlier than the US version you know - hmmm, that doesn't sound right at all... But I hope it's true UltimateNagash 17:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that should have been 27/07. The US release is 04/07

perfectblue 18:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification - seemed a bit strange really. Good time then as well - cause my Birthday's in July, and my exams will be finished. Thanks for the info UltimateNagash 18:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It's definately 27 July - in SFX154 UltimateNagash 15:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Character Named Miles

The Wikipedia page for John Robinson (American actor) has him listed as playing a character named Miles. While Miles is not a "known" character for the 2007 film. There appear to be no sources listed for the claim, and one of these pages should probably be changed to prevent confusion. 146.145.215.131 18:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There's IMDb. Wait for something official to come up. Wiki-newbie 18:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

In that draft script that was out for a brief moment, it said Miles was Sam's buddy, but I am ignoring that cause it might be changed. We should leave it out until something comes up like Wiki-newbie suggests. Evilgidgit 19:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Black around images

There's a couple of images that could be cropped without the black filler around it and re-uploaded to the article. Is this possible to do? Seems like it would display more professionally as a result. (I mean the Scorponok and the Bumblebee images, not the poster image.) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't ask me, all the images from the trailer I simply pasted from Transformers World 2005's gallery. If anyone could do so it'd be much appreciated. Wiki-newbie 20:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Merchandise - hell!

• "Hasbro Rolls Out Transformers Products". SuperHeroHype.com. 2007-02-10. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

I'm really puzzled as to how comprehensive this article should be. Wiki-newbie 21:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be better to be inclusive. You can always determine how to trim down the content at a later date if people think it's too much. I think, though, that when the film comes out, there will be a bit of commentary (especially interviews) about why they did this and that for each Transformer. You could also even do a content fork if it comes to that, though I don't know how well a Merchandise from the 2008 Transformers film article would stand up. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. Well, this is a film based on a toy line. Wiki-newbie 21:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

An anon has added a criticism section, based on a few fans disliking the transformers designs. In my view, I do not think such websites are reliable sources, and that considering this article is about an unreleased film, adding such things is silly considering people haven't even seen it. Wiki-newbie 20:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I second the notion. Criticism should be represented by reliable sources, and these should include authoritative publications (usually those of the mainstream variety) instead of individual fans' opinions. I'm sure the design will be criticized (whether positively or negatively) by reviewers when the film debuts, so these professional opinions can be reflected then. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That is absurd. Legitimate criticism can come from anyone. Who is to say who is an authoritative source or not. Ideas should be judged on their own merits. This line of thinking that we can not include criticism from people who are not "authorities" is a logical fallacy known as "argumentum ad verecundiam". This attempt as suppressing criticism of these design changes is pure censorship, and against the NPOV policies of Wikipedia. I am putting the Criticism section back in. If it is deleted again, I am requesting protection of this page. 75.21.126.57 21:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia's policy of requiring reliable sources. Blogs and YouTube links do not fall in this category. Anyone can express any kind of criticism over any kind of topic, even when there is none to be had before. We are not opposing the inclusion of criticism for this film; we would welcome it if the sources are reliable. However, the film has not had any pre-screenings yet, and there are no reliable sources that have called elements of the film into question. Please understand that we are not trying to make this film look "good", we are adhering to Wikipedia's policies of using reliable sources. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict)As an authoratative figure on the subject of the Critical Views of 75.21.126.57, I can fully support and certifiy that the views he holds are his own and thus, inherently His. They are not the views of others, but in fact his own. Although I have note established any credentials, I am postign this on the web, and thus am certainly authoritative enough to be cited by anyone who needs a citation regarding the views of 75.21.126.57 on this particular topic. </sarcasm> See? Anyone can be authoritative by their own declaration. Wikipedia's reliable Sources policy exists to counter this and establish a baseline. Blogs have narrow constraints on their use as sources on Wikipedia; Reviews are NOT one of them. ThuranX 22:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The inclusion of those citations merely verified the statement posted in the criticisms section that "Michael Bay is being villified on the internet". The blogs, sites, etc. are the evidence that he is being widely villified on the internet. One only needs to visit those sites to see it. No study or screenings need to be seen to verify this. Please do not censor the criticism section any more. 75.21.126.57 22:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

'villified' is definitely a POV word, by the way. ThuranX 22:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you tell me how several sites can speak for the whole Internet? I have to caution you that a vocal minority may seem like a majority, which is why we need to rely on reliable sources for accuracy. In addition, it is nearly impossible to gauge how all Transformers fans would feel about these designs, as not all of them are on the Internet or browse the sites that you have mentioned. As I've informed you on your talk page, reverting once more will put you in violation of the three-revert rule. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Since it is apparent that the anonymous editor is trying to make a point despite the willingness of other editors to discuss why the additions are disputed, I will explain in detail why the anonymous editor's addition does not adhere to Wikipedia's policies.

• "Michael Bay has recently been heavily vilified throughout the internet and various blogs" is a blanket statement, considering that the citations are not reliable sources and that only one blog has been presented as evidence for the "various blogs" contesting the design.
• This blog is not permissible per WP:RS#Self-published sources.
• YouTube also violates the same subsection of Wikipedia's RS policy mentioned above, as it is presented by a non-notable person who lacks authority in addressing the quality of the design.
• Penny Arcade has a satirical comic strip, which is poor evidence for the previously mentioned "heavily vilified" statement.
• SeiberTron.com does not appear to speak authoritatively for any kind of fan base, as there is no poll or aggregation of opinions to reflect the opposition to the film's designs.

Please review my points; these are most likely why four editors have opposed the addition of the Criticism section. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, my faith in the protection system was just shook. It's amazing that anonymous editor actually got his protection on grounds that inaccurate. To the point, Mr. GIPU, you need reliable sourcing. Unfortunately, "fan reaction" is the hardest thing to measure, and just about impossible to verify. So, you must find authoritive sources on the subject, just as Erik, Wiki, and ThuranX have explained to you. There are policies that govern what we do on this site. One cannot make-up rules as they go. The problem with your sources is not only are they unreliable, per the policy, but the film isn't even finished, let alone has anyone seen anything beyond some conceptual design. When the finished film is released, then we will most likely have reliable sources commenting on the design changes in the film. Secondly, when that does happen, to adhere to the NPOV policy of Wikipedia, we will also be looking for people that like the new designs of the Transformers. So, not only does your information lack reliable sourcing, but it violates the NPOV policy, and it's rather negative toward the film.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  23:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The IP in question was basically a single purpose editor, who has NOT returned to discuss it since getting the page locked up. Citation of blogs for criticism in the form of insult is against WP:RS, as it's unsubstantiated naysaying, not actual critique. Further, all of these sites are using leaked or a severely limited pool of information to make a judgement about the appearance of the characters. Finally, most of these sites had established years before production started that any sort of live action film that didn't utilize humans in cardboard suits, worn by humans who actually can bend in the appropriate ways, would automatically suck. This predetermination of what single solution would be the only one these hardcore fans would accept inherently discredits their opinions and credibility. "Unless it's the way we want it exactly, it will suck, no matter what IS done" thinking invalidates any 'It sucks' that they say after. ThuranX 00:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

British Date

It says in the infobox that the film comes out on July 27th in the UK. Do we have a source on this? If so...then no fair! (I get impatient when things come out late). Evilgidgit 21:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

UK SFX latest issue UltimateNagash 21:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)